Posted on 10/20/2024 7:10:55 AM PDT by MtnClimber
It seems that nuclear power for base generation and natural gas for peak generation would be the best thing to do at the current time while still experimenting on other methods. It is beneficial to have data on how different methods perform.
“...like its lower energy density compared to natural gas, and the prospective need for a whole new infrastructure of pipelines, power plants, delivery trucks and consumer appliances.”
There WILL NEVER be hydrogen consumer appliances - they will be all-electric. The closest that the hydrogen ever gets to the consumers, assuming it becomes more than a pipe dream, will be central stations converting it back to electricity.
“The Royal Society had collected weather data for Britain for some 37 years, which had revealed that there are worst-case wind and sun “droughts,” comparable to rain droughts, that may occur only once every 20 years or more. A storage solution to back up wind and solar electricity generation without fossil fuel back-up needs to cover these worst-case droughts.”
While it’s good they went back for 37 years, why not 200 years, or 500 years? The reason is VOLCANOES, with fallout that stays in the atmosphere for years and which blocks sunlight, which also lowers wind speeds, and results in overall cooling (as in much higher ELECTRIC heating requirements).
Even the people who might appear to look as though they’re doing a good job trying to flush out the cost still have NO CLUE as to risk they’re putting people at.
With the watermelon Marxists our energy policy is moonbeams and unicorn farts. The Marxists at the top of the “climate change” cult know very well they are lying and conning the American people as they whip their zombie acolytes into a frenzy. I suspect the Aztec rulers and priests knew that the sun and rain would come regardless of how many they sacrificed in terror inducing bloody rituals. It it kept them on top until Cortez came along and most Mexican tribes joined Cortez in destroying the Aztec Empire. The scum that usurped or republic will get their judgement day at the hands of the American people.
I never understand why the liberals oppose nuclear .
Nuclear produces zero greenhouse gases. Based on the liberals own criteria of wanting to reduce these dreaded greenhouse gases, nuclear should definitely be in the mix of energy sources that they promote.
“$6/kgH2 converts to $48/MMBTU”
To help some here with the math. MMBTU is 1 million BTUs, and it is the common unit for pricing natural gas when it is burned - so in the above, you would pay $48 to buy enough natural gas to produce 1 million BTUs of heat.
To convert that to a wholesale cost of electrical power in dollars per kwh, it’s very easy - just divide by 5 (which assumes 50% efficiency at a natural gas power plant). So with $48 for natural gas, you would get roughly 10 cents/kwh of power. Sounds cheap, but that’s back at the power plant. So add another 5 to 10 cents to that price for distribution to end-users. Still not too bad...until you see what the REAL cost will be with hydrogen (up to $800 per MMBTU in this article).
The secret power of H2 use is that it eliminates the need to truck and store the fuel. Generate it at the point of need — the filling station. Use leccy to generate.
Greenies will oppose this in any way possible ‘cause they could not care less about environment. They only want to destroy Western civilization; and, expensive energy will do that.
Good posting from the Manhattan Contrarian.
Once in 23 years.
Storing H2 in caverns is a no go, as stone is too porous to contain H2 at useful pressures for any length of time. If you line the cavern with steel to lower the losses, the cost will be exorbitant.
Manhattan Contrarian ping
i wonder if some sort of mild electromatic energy could be used with such metal containers to help block passage of the h2 between the iron and carbon atoms.
Watermelons. Green on the outside, red on the inside.
They oppose nuclear power for the USA.
Nuclear power is fine for those who oppose the USA.
The left wants to destroy Western Civilization. They want to eliminate any source of affordable energy.
This is stupid.
The cost of storage is a problem only if you centralize production.
Hydrogen is everywhere (obviously).
I do believe that I may see in my lifetime the beginning of a transition, a growing movement with people converting their POVs to hydrogen and their homes to hydrogen heating.
And I also believe that the government will be there every step of the way to inhibit such a movement, the restrictions on lithium 6 being one such inhibitor...
I’d think that caverns are a no-go, too. There are methods of storing hydrogen in a more compact form like in metal hydrides, for example. But the process of doing that ‘storing’ is another step in a process that just seems awfully involved in the first place.
It's all about control. By keeping power deliver out of the free market the watermelon (green on the outside red on the inside) liberals feel they can control the masses use of energy. By making electrical power a scarce resource, they'll be the ones rationing it. For further information see The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear by Petr Beckmann, if you can find it.
Manhattan Contrarian is an outstanding site for climate scam analysis. I always click through and give Francis Menton a hit. No popups or other BS.
Because cheap reliable energy creates economic freedom, and there is nothing fascist-communists oppose more than freedom.
You posted what I was thinking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.